Stakeholder participation in management of invasive vertebrates

Stakeholders are increasingly involved in species conservation. We sought to understand what features of a participatory conservation program are associated with its ecological and social outcomes. We conducted a case study of the management of invasive vertebrates in Australia. Invasive vertebrates are a substantial threat to Australia's native species, and stakeholder participation in their management is often necessary for their control. First, we identified potential influences on the ecological and social outcomes of species conservation programs from the literature. We used this information to devise an interview questionnaire, which we administered to managers of 34 participatory invasive-vertebrate programs. Effects of invasive species were related to program initiator (agency or citizen), reasons for use of a participatory approach, and stakeholder composition. Program initiator was also related to the participation methods used, level of governance (i.e., governed by an agency or citizens), changes in stakeholder interactions, and changes in abundance of invasive species. Ecological and social outcomes were related to changes in abundance of invasive species and stakeholder satisfaction. We identified relations between changes in the number of participants, stakeholder satisfaction, and occurrence of conflict. Potential ways to achieve ecological and social goals include provision of governmental support (e.g., funding) to stakeholders and minimization of gaps in representation of stakeholder groups or individuals to, for example, increase conflict mitigation. Our findings provide guidance for increasing the probability of achieving ecological and social objectives in management of invasive vertebrates and may be applicable to other participatory conservation programs.     

Deconstructing compassionate conservation

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public.     

Controlling range expansion in habitat networks by adaptively targeting source populations

Controlling the spread of invasive species, pests, and pathogens is often logistically limited to interventions that target specific locations at specific periods. However, in complex, highly connected systems, such as marine environments connected by ocean currents, populations spread dynamically in both space and time via transient connectivity links. This results in nondeterministic future distributions of species in which local populations emerge dynamically and concurrently over a large area. The challenge, therefore, is to choose intervention locations that will maximize the effectiveness of the control efforts. We propose a novel method to manage dynamic species invasions and outbreaks that identifies the intervention locations most likely to curtail population expansion by selectively targeting local populations most likely to expand their future range. Critically, at any point during the development of the invasion or outbreak, the method identifies the local intervention that maximizes the long‐term benefit across the ecosystem by restricting species’ potential to spread. In so doing, the method adaptively selects the intervention targets under dynamically changing circumstances. To illustrate the effectiveness of the method we applied it to controlling the spread of crown‐of‐thorns starfish (Acanthaster sp.) outbreaks across Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Application of our method resulted in an 18‐fold relative improvement in management outcomes compared with a random targeting of reefs in putative starfish control scenarios. Although we focused on applying the method to reducing the spread of an unwanted species, it can also be used to facilitate the spread of desirable species through connectivity networks. For example, the method could be used to select those fragments of habitat most likely to rebuild a population if they were sufficiently well protected.